Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Leed V5 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Medford advisory team flags LEED v5 review challenges as MSBA reimbursement rules weigh on certification choice
Summary
Project designers told the advisory team that MSBA reimbursement incentives and recent LEED version changes complicate choosing LEED v5; pilot projects reported many points denied under v5 and Medford may be an early adopter, so the team will weigh MSBA rules, stretch‑code incentives, and certification risk in the SD LCCA.
Martina, the project lead, told the advisory team that the U.S. Green Building Council moved the compliance path and "they gave a whole a whole year extension on LEED v4," which delays mandatory adoption of LEED v5 until 2027. She said MSBA now allows either LEED v4 or v5 and requires Silver under either version.
She relayed feedback from pilot LEED v5 projects: "there were considerable challenges with the review process," and "a minimum of 10 plus point, was denied on this project," which makes achieving higher certification levels harder under v5. Martina said that difference matters because MSBA reimbursement is structured by specific program incentives and not strictly by a higher certification level.
Advisory members asked how that interacts with local policy incentives. Martina said the specialized stretch energy code Medford has adopted also affects the choice: complying with the stretch code can qualify the district for an additional 3% MSBA reimbursement and optimized LEED material/IAQ credits can add another 1% reimbursement if certain point thresholds are met. The project team recommended the advisory group treat LEED version choice as a risk parameter in the schematic‑design life‑cycle cost analysis and report back with more concrete options.
The advisory group did not decide a certification path at the meeting; members asked the team to include comparative LCCA results for both LEED v4 and v5 scenarios in the next SD materials.
